Closed for wolves
In this country, about 150 thousand people are bitten by dogs every year. About 13 thousand sheep are bitten by dogs. It seems to be a bit unclear how many sheep die as a result of this, but in any case it is a lot more than are killed by wolves. Of course, it is not the fault of the dogs, they have owners who are responsible (or irresponsible). I've twice been bitten by dogs whilst out on my mountain bike, and one time the owner didn't even try to call his dog off as I cycled along a public road in front of his house. But wolves don't have owners, so who is responsible if they do actually bite someone? So far, it hasn't happened, but if people feed them or go stupidly close to them, then there is a serious risk that it will happen. In countries where bears live, people know that they cannot keep food in their tent or there is a risk that bears will come looking for it. Maybe we will need to learn that here.
There has been a lot of hysteria in the press and elsewhere recently about wolves. What people don't seem to realise is that the wolf is a wild animal that came here under its own stream and that when wild animals are hunted, it might reduce their population temporarily, but it will also drive the animals out from their core habitats and lead to more problems. Hunting is simply not an effective way to reduce conflict between people and wild animals. It is even possible that hunters are scared that wolves will make their 'managment' of deer and wild boar less justifiable.
Today, when I was out with the club, a section of the track was closed for 'wildlife management'. Apparently this is due to wolves with young in the area. If that reduces the conflict, then I'm quite happy with that. But wolves can have large territories. How much of the woods can we close off for them?
